Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Bans 19 Chemicals Used In Antibacterial Soaps (nbcnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rinse-and-repeat dept.

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered "antibacterial" ingredients to be removed from consumer soaps, citing a lack of evidence that they are effective in making soap work any better and that the industry has failed to prove they're safe. The banned chemicals include triclosan, triclocarban and 17 others (PDF) typically found in hand and body soaps. Companies have until late next year to remove the ingredients from their products, the FDA said. "Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections," the FDA said in a statement. NBC News reports: "In 2013 FDA gave soapmakers a year to show that adding antibacterial chemicals did anything at all to help them kill germs. It made the rule final Friday. The FDA started asking about triclosan in 1978. Environmental groups and some members of Congress have been calling for limits on the use of triclosan. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued and the FDA agreed to do something about triclosan by 2016. There's no proof that triclosan is dangerous to people, but some animal studies suggest high doses can affect the way hormones work in the body. The proposed rule only affects hand soaps and body washes. Triclosan is often used in toothpaste and it's been shown to help kill germs that cause gum disease."

6 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Snake Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no reason or justification for the FDA to regulate them

    This patented Antibacterial Snake Oil Goat Weed will repel Tigers & Bears, with the added benefits of making you attractive to the opposite sex and give you rock-hard erections.

    since these active ingredients are otherwise safe...

    Citation needed

  2. Reporters and the FDA are incorrect by mveloso · · Score: 4, Informative

    The press, being the idiots that they are, don't realize that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over "soap." The FDA isn't helping by trying to broaden their reach.

    Their order says "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a final rule establishing that over-the-counter (OTC) consumer antiseptic wash products containing certain active ingredients can no longer be marketed."

    That is not soap. In fact, the FDA says it has no jurisdiction over soap, which is confusing because on various webpages they say "Soap," and they do so in the title of said order as well.

    Here's the FDA's explanation of Soap:

    http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/G...

    Here's the part that's relevant.

    "Not every product marketed as soap meets FDA's definition of the term. FDA interprets the term "soap" to apply only when

    the bulk of the nonvolatile matter in the product consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the product's detergent properties are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds, and the product is labeled, sold, and represented solely as soap [21 CFR 701.20].

    Products that meet this definition of soap are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission disclaimer icon (CPSC), not by FDA. Please direct questions about these products, such as safety and labeling requirements, to CPSC. "

    1. Re:Reporters and the FDA are incorrect by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      The press, being the idiots that they are, don't realize that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over "soap." The FDA isn't helping by trying to broaden their reach.

      Their order says "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a final rule establishing that over-the-counter (OTC) consumer antiseptic wash products containing certain active ingredients can no longer be marketed."

      That is not soap. In fact, the FDA says it has no jurisdiction over soap, which is confusing because on various webpages they say "Soap," and they do so in the title of said order as well.

      Unfortunately, I think you're the one who is confused, though I can understand why. The key is in the definition you quote:

      FDA interprets the term "soap" to apply only when the bulk of the nonvolatile matter in the product consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the product's detergent properties are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds, and the product is labeled, sold, and represented solely as soap

      I'm pretty sure the vast majority of products consumers associate with "antibacterial soaps" do NOT meet that definition. Most people think of antibacterial hand soaps, for example, which almost always are based on other detergents, for example the well-known (and maligned among "natural products" fans) sodium lauryl sulfate. These other detergents are commonly produced by other chemical means, which you can look up more information on if you want. They are more common, because they generally produce superior cleaning properties than "true soap" through surfactant properties, foaming properties, etc., which also allow them to be effective under a greater variety of conditions (e.g., hard water).

      Note that the FDA allows such products still to be marketed as "soap" as long as they have cleansing characteristics and purposes similar to traditional "true soap." Hence the confusion here. The FDA's announcement and reporters' use of the term "soap" was probably meant to inform consumers of the common vernacular association of the term, as well as how these products are marketed, not the technical regulatory definition.

      The number of "true soap" products that are ALSO "antibacterial" is probably quite small, because most of the "true soap" products used in situations where antibacterial soaps are common are marketed to be "natural" and thus are unlikely to contain a lot of these antibacterial agents.

      And even where such products exist, there is a regulatory argument to be made by the final element of the FDA definition, i.e., "the product is labeled, sold, and represented solely as soap." According to traditional definition, "soap" is not "antibacterial." These products are making a claim of additional action -- rather than just being a cleanser or detergent, they are also an active antibacterial agent, hence, I'm not sure they'd satisfy the criterion of being "represented SOLELY as soap."

  3. The Point... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The point of this isn't to ban a harmless ingredient, but to ban a harmless ingredient that could eventually prove to not be so harmless. Completely putting aside the potential long term interactions on the human body - which is hugely significant, lead and arsenic don't cause their damage in one day either - "antibacterial" soaps are essentially the same thing as "antibiotic" soaps, and you may see where this is going. 99.9% of the time, killing off all these harmless bacteria doesn't yield any benefit, but it will breed stronger bacteria over time, and that can lead tro some very nasty things. Gonorrhea, for example, is an STD that was once easily curable, but is now becoming harder and harder to treat, and I believe there is a new strain popping up for which there is no cure known at the present time. When such a disease appears and is immune to our easiest form of defense, it has the potential to become an unstoppable epidemic, and again, there's no benefit at all to killing otherwise harmless bacteria (which may even help strengthen our immune systems).

    Secondly, these soaps are snake oil, and in more ways than one. Antibacterial soaps do absolutely nothing to stop viruses, so if you think this soap will help protect you from the common cold or the flu, think again. It's also no more effective than normal soap, so you're paying more for a completely useless product, and I doubt many people know this - at the very least, stronger labeling is definitely required. Bait-and-switch, along with the false sense of security, is an issue.

    And if all that doesn't convince you, than consider this: we already have a product for all of this, and it's known as hand sanitizer. If there is a place or occasion where you really need to disinfect your hands, use this stuff; it's cheap, effective, usable on the go (the places where you probably need it the most), and bacteria isn't going to be adapting to alcohol anytime soon. As a result, you limit bacterial adaptability, you save money, you destroy viruses, and you don't play Russian Roulette with our ecosystem. Common sense, people.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  4. Re:overreach by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, we're suffering in this socialist European country I'm in.

    No, wait, the word isn't suffering... it's prospering, sorry. My bad.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re: overreach by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know how things are in the US, but where I live, claims of efficacy on homeopathic products are extremely carefully worded, and usually quite vague.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});